get_ad_images

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by making the read-only nature clear through the verb 'List,' exposing the default field set, documenting cursor-based pagination and filtering, and stating the return container. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for a straightforward read/list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by a tight argument list and a one-line return note. There is no fluff or repetition of schema metadata; every sentence adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: all parameters are documented, defaults are given, and an act_id example is provided. It omits high-level selection guidance relative to the many sibling tools, but an agent can construct a valid call from this description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates: it explains act_id with an example, enumerates available fields and the default, defines limit, clarifies 'after' and 'before' as pagination cursors, and describes the hashes filter. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear, specific action and resource: 'List images in the ad account's creative library.' 'List' plus 'images' makes the operation unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like get_ad_creatives_by_ad_id or get_ad_creative_by_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor are there any exclusions or alternative suggestions. The argument documentation implies it is for image metadata, but an agent receives no help deciding between this and the creative-oriented siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.